Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rodelal vs Laxminarayan on 7 August, 2018
1 WP-1399-2014
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-1399-2014
(RODELAL Vs LAXMINARAYAN)
3
Gwalior, Dated : 07-08-2018
Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kuldeep Singh, learned Government Advocate for respondent
No.2-State.
None for respondent No.1.
With consent, heard finally.
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 18/12/2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court whereby application preferred at the instance of respondent No.1-defendant under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act r/w Order 13 Rule 3 CPC has been allowed and the agreement dated 02/11/1998 was discarded for evidence purpose.
Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and for grant of permanent injunction in respect of the suit property situate at Chachoda, District-Guna. Petitioner/ plaintiff on the basis of an agreement dated 02/11/1998 asserted his right title and interest over the suit property. It appears from the pleadings that respondent after causing his appearance and filing written statement, filed an application under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act r/w Order 13 Rule 3 CPC with a prayer that the agreement in question is not properly stamped therefore, penalty is required to be imposed before exhibiting it as document in record. It further appears that the trial Court allowed the said application and the document was discarded for evidence purpose therefore, petitioner has preferred this petition.
According to counsel for the petitioner the approach of the trial Court is arbitrary and illegal because the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akshay Doogad Vs. State of M.P. and Ors., ILR 2016 (MP) 217, whereby this Court has held that for collateral purpose, un- registered document can be used for evidence considering the proviso of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. It is further submitted that the trial Court had two remedies available with it, either to impound itself and impose stamp duty with penalty over the documents and/ or to refer the matter before the Collector of Stamp after impounding of the document for payment of sufficient stamp duty and for registration and 2 WP-1399-2014 with imposition of penalty. Here both the courses have not been adopted by the trial Court. He relied upon of this Court Satyanarayan S/o Nathulalji Gaud Vs. Ramsingh deceased through Lrs. 2007 (3) MPLJ
384. Learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
Heard.
From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the trial Court has ignored the provisions of Indian Registration Act as well as Indian Stamp Act wherein Indian Registration Act provides the proviso appended with Section 49 of the Registration Act whereby the documents if not registered, still can be used for collateral purpose.
Besides that, if the document was un-registered or insufficiently stamped then it can be impounded for the Collector of Stamps but the Court out-rightly discarded the document.
Resultantly, the impugned order dated 18/12/2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh adjudication in respect of course to be adopted. The trial Court shall be at liberty to impound document and refer the document to the Collector of Stamps under Section 30 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act.
The trial Court would look into the matter afresh in respect of the prayer made by the petitioner and if the document is used only for collateral purpose then the trial Court shall ensure the compliance as per the mandate of the provision of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act.
Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20th August, 2018 and shall take necessary guidance thereafter.
(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE VC VARSHA CHATURVEDI 2018.08.09 15:01:35
-07'00'